WASHINGTON, Oct 7 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Monday that his administration’s proposal to boost the biofuels market next year would bring the amount of corn-based ethanol mixed into the nation’s fuel to 16 billion gallons (60.6 billion liters).
Trump's EPA had unveiled the plan here last week to boost U.S. biofuels consumption to help struggling farmers, but didn't provide an exact figure. The plan cheered the agriculture industry but triggered a backlash from Big Oil.
Not everybody is happy about this:
| October 06, 2019 07:00 AM
"The ethanol lobby is like that greedy child on Halloween who is supposed to take one piece of candy at the door, but grabs a handful and runs away.
Already guaranteed a share of the energy market through the Renewable Fuel Standard, a regulation which mandates that fuel used for transportation contains a certain amount of renewable sources like ethanol, Big Corn is reaching out for even more.
This is a problem, as the ethanol mandate has never come cheap. Indeed, it’s hugely expensive, both economically and environmentally. University of California-Davis researchers determined that the mandate has raised corn and soybean prices 30% and 20%, respectively. Higher prices for food and feedstock are bad news for consumers and farmers raising chickens, cattle, turkeys, and other livestock.
The mandate has also produced undesirable environmental side-effects. The National Wildlife Foundation found that it resulted in the “conversion of 1.6 million acres of grassland, shrubland, wetland, and forestland into cropland between 2008 and 2016.”
Complying with the mandate is hugely expensive for American refiners as well. Naturally, those costs are passed on to consumers — sometimes costing them more than $1 billion a year. The Energy Policy Research Foundation and others estimate it has driven up gasoline prices 6 to 9 cents per gallon.
For small and mid-sized refineries, mandate compliance costs can be crippling. Small refiners can petition the Environmental Protection Agency for exemptions from producing ethanol if they can prove it would cause “disproportionate economic hardship.” Last year, the EPA granted 31 such waivers — and the ethanol lobby went ballistic. The exemptions, they claimed, would destroy ethanol markets.
That hasn’t happened.
Agricultural economist Scott Irwin finds “little if any evidence that the physical use of ethanol has declined during the last year.” He attributes the dip in ethanol prices to excess supply, rather than falling demand. But that hasn’t stopped Big Corn from demanding that the administration forces refiners to produce even more ethanol. And now the Trump administration seems to be on the verge of capitulating."
metmike: As an environmentalist, I oppose Trumps politics here to win over the farm voting block. Having numerous farmer friends, I completely understand why agriculture views this in one sided fashion and positive. If I was a producer, I would feel the same way.
Obama was also an ethanol guy if I recall. Iowa has 10 electoral votes I think.
I don't think one Dem candidate is an ethanol fan
Warren doesn't like ethanol, cows or big oil [fossil fuels]
I don't know about the others as Warren seems to get all the ink
So what is warren advocating that is realistic
I suppose she thinks electric cars run for ever, with an extension cord plugged into an electric outlet
Park your electric car, get out the extension cord, put some money in the meter, [or plastic in todays world]just like a parking meter, go to work and you are good for 500 miles, at days end.
It's completely made up bullsheet. Does anybody think the US Energy Department, maybe the most respected in the world is completely clueless?
Every one of these candidates are either clueless or know the truth and are lying.
US EIA International Energy Outlook"
Why would they lie?
1. To get elected and thats what career politicians do.
2. To pass carbon taxes on CO2 and fossil fuels
3. To move towards US and global socialism which is the ONLY thing that the Climate Accord will do.